Walking around with a $10000+ lens I don't own doesn't seem to be that much fun to me - better bring a bodyguard, or a prime insurance what won't hesitate to pay if you say "wups, it's gone, dunno where to".

At that price, this product is really irrelevant to me regardless of its features and benefits. L lenses have always been expensive but Canon appears determined to see exactly how much they can gouge their customer base before these lenses stop selling. I hope they find the ceiling soon.

They'll never "stop" selling lenses, just selling less, but at a greater profit. Enthusiasts and big pros would still buy this lens at $15000, and the 5d3 would be sold at $4000 just fine for the time being.

We don't know how this lens will compare to Nikon's 200-400 but I'm guessing it is not going to be significantly superior.

Maybe Canon is targeting these new L lenses like the 24-70ii and tele primes at upcoming sensors with 30mp+, leaving cheapos with current 18-22mp sensors behind - and esp. crop users, many of those would like to have a decent 100-400 replacement w/o paying for premium edge iq they don't use.

Walking around with a $10000+ lens I don't own doesn't seem to be that much fun to me - better bring a bodyguard, or a prime insurance what won't hesitate to pay if you say "wups, it's gone, dunno where to".

... meaning you weren't serious? Sorry, didn't pick up that, maybe you could use smilies to make it clearer. Personally, I'm currently just annoyed about Canon's policy - and I have been using Canon for 25 years - and maybe this shows a little now and then :-o

I can't justify f5.6 with the TC is engaged for the same price as the 400mm f2.8 II. There must be a lot of R&D Canon has to recoup on this lens for it to be priced at $11K.

I agree that the guess of $11k is a bit steep, but its tough to compare it with a 400 f2.8. I use a 600 f4 and a 300 f2.8 frequently, and depending on where I plan to shoot and what I am shooting will help me to decide which lens to bring.

Its just too much gear for me to bring both. This is why the 200-400 would interest me. It would give me more flexibility when I am out in the field and allow me to cover a broad range of zooms. 200-560mm. Also, unless I am shooting subjects that are very close to my tele lenses such as birds, I often stop my lens down to f6.3, f7.1 or f8 for a little higher IQ and longer DOF with larger wildlife. Of course DOF considerations come first but I do find that I am often not shooting wide open.

Also, my 600f4 (NON IS version) weighs 13 lbs. The 400 f2.8 weighs over 11. Both are an absolute bear of a lens and need a tripod to shoot with. The 200-400 will likely come in much lighter. Maybe in the 7-9 lb range. It could even be lighter! (Afterall the new 600 f4 is only 8.5lbs!!) While this would still be a bear to shoot handheld it would certainly be do-able and with a monopod would be a breeze...

All said and done, if the IQ compares to either of my long lenses at their respective focal lengths (560 is pretty close to 600) I would be inclined to consolidate my kit and sell the 300 and 600 to put towards the 200-400.

... meaning you weren't serious? Sorry, didn't pick up that, maybe you could use smilies to make it clearer. Personally, I'm currently just annoyed about Canon's policy - and I have been using Canon for 25 years - and maybe this shows a little now and then :-o

I like using good glass to get the shots I want for fun and for pay. It'd be fun to take on a weekend sometime to shoot some wildlife or compressed landscapes, especially with CPS being so kind to me lately.

photophreek

I've been contemplaring the 200-400 since it's development announcement. However, since then, the 400mm f2.8II was announced and at probably the same price as the 200-400. The ver 1 of the 400 is certainly a heavy lens, but the ver II is the same weight as the 500mm f4 IS ver 1 which I own. Notwithstanding the versatility of the zoom, it's the ultimate aperture of the 200-400 that is my issue and as a result, difficult for me to decide on the 200-400 over the 400mm f2.8 II.

I've been contemplaring the 200-400 since it's development announcement. However, since then, the 400mm f2.8II was announced and at probably the same price as the 200-400. The ver 1 of the 400 is certainly a heavy lens, but the ver II is the same weight as the 500mm f4 IS ver 1 which I own. Notwithstanding the versatility of the zoom, it's the ultimate aperture of the 200-400 that is my issue and as a result, difficult for me to decide on the 200-400 over the 400mm f2.8 II.

Excellent points. And the new 400 will be one heck of a lens! It really boils down to how you intend to use the lens of choice. I primarily use prime lenses for telephoto because I found that I was shooting at max focal distance most of the time. The IQ loss resulting from tele-zooms did not justify the zoom range. I am spending more and more time shooting from a Kayak and and currently bring two bodies that cover the 200mm to 420mm (300+1.4TC), so for me the 200 -400 would be a great lens.... as long as it doesnt capsize my boat.

That said, Canon has never produced a lens of this caliber in this zoom range. So it will certainly be interesting to see the final product.

Better still a 300-560 - after all who is really interested in 200 f4.

This new lens at the proposed price will be embarrassing for Canon if it is not pin sharp at 560/5.6 - IMO.

I don't know if I'd call it a gimmick. More of a convenience. Gives the lens some more flexibility and range. Maybe I look at it from a slightly different perspective being a TV photog and most of our lenses have built-in 2x extenders. Both of my lenses have a 2x built in. My wide angle 13x4.5mm, which in FF 35mm equates to 17.5mm-230mm becomes a 35mm-460mm; and my long lens 22x7.8mm, which equates to 30.5mm-670mm becomes 61mm-1340mm, all at the flip of a single lever. Granted, I don't like to use the extender unless I have to because it does cut your light and if you're wide open anyway you can get image degradation, but there have been many times where I could not have gotten the shot without it or not as good of a shot. And if it's built-in, you are a LOT more likely to use it. I have a 1.4x in my still bag and I RARELY use it. What's going to be quicker and easier if you need a little more reach? Flipping a lever or taking your lens off, putting on an extender and then putting the lens back on? And the converse is true if you need to get your back-end back quickly.

Just my take on it. But in stills, it's easy to crop in post if you need to get a little tighter, too. We really don't have that luxury in TV(well, a little, but the price to pay for the hit in image quality is much more significant.)